(debian-devel trimmed until we get our own position clear) Ludovic Brenta <[email protected]> writes:
> David Kalnischkies <[email protected]> writes: >> No. Replaces is used to say to dpkg: It is okay that this package >> overrides files of the other package - otherwise dpkg would complain >> loudly for good reasons. It doesn't say something about the >> upgrade path. > > I disagree with this particular part of your analysis. What you say is > true of Conflicts, not of Replaces. IMHO, Replaces really, clearly > suggests an upgrade path. Why else would the package renaming procedure > require both Conflicts and Replaces? I agree that the Debian Policy is not clear on this. But since the Debian Wiki gives a renaming procedure that uses Provides, it would seem that Conflicts and Replaces is _not_ intended to be enough to define the upgrade path. > Let me emphasize again that, for Ada, a new version of a -dev package > (i.e. libX2-dev) is *not* a complete replacement for libX1-dev, > therefore we must use neither a dummy transitional package nor a > Provides relationship. I don't follow this. We don't allow libX2-dev an libX1-dev to be installed at the same time, and we do intend that people upgrade from libX1-dev to libX2-dev, but have the option of downgrading to libX1-dev if they need to. We could use a virtual package libPACKAGE-dev; all aliversions would provide that package. This is similar to all soversions providing a symlink libpackage.so -> libpackage.so.soversion. I'll add a section in Debian policy for Ada that discusses this; we need to explain the actual behavior of dpkg, not just what we think the Debian Policy says :). -- -- Stephe -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: http://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
